On the Duty of Resisting Error

Influenced by the progressivist idea that no one is allowed to judge anyone else - an idea so widespread in America that is becoming almost a paranoia - many tradionalist Catholics become insecure to say that a doctrine or a person is wrong and that it or he goes against the past teaching of the Church.

In the text below, Fr. Sarda y Salvany makes it clear that the layman has not only the right but the duty to make weighty judgments on important matters of faith based on human reason duly enlightened by God.



Yes, human reason, as the theologians say, has a place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith. It is false to pretend that the inferior light of the human understanding illuminated by God cannot shine at all because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light of faith.

Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to use reason to serve their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is, thus, by using their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect or measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine, presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it.

They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can legitimately hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church.

Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Oportet allatrare canes. "It behooves watchdogs to bark" very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions.

Liberalism Is a Sin, chap. 23, TAN Books, 1995, pp. 153-154.


Adapted from here.

On Condemning Error

The following article explains why error must be refuted and also shows why the SSPX, which once performed this duty, should be doing it today.

Fr. Chautard is presently the rector of the SSPX University in Paris (L’Institut Universitaire Saint-Pie X).

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"The Critical Ministry of the Society" by Father François-Marie Chautard

(The Chardonnet No. 239, June 2008)

Even if we have to work from the inside, can we not keep a respectful silence on the modern errors spread by the authorities while preaching sound doctrine?

Actually, respectful silence is only morally possible in order to avoid a worse evil. The story of St. Pius X provides us with an example with L’Action Française, when he felt that a condemnation was inappropriate and would have resulted in far more inconveniences than advantages. However, in the present case, the circumstances are such that the inconvenience resulting from silence (neglect for the common good of the Faith and scandal for the faithful) is worse than the inconvenience resulting from the denunciation of error (the apparent ostracism by the visible society of the conciliar Church).

So the answer lies in one word: the good of the Faith. The good of the Faith today involves the condemnation of error for two reasons:

- to keep it yourself. Experience proves, unfortunately, that it is not enough to preach the Truth, but that errors also need to be condemned.

- to prevent the fall of those who might be tempted to succumb to it.

Let us add the following arguments which weigh in the balance and show that a true love of the Faith cannot be combined today with a respectful silence:

1. The Truth requires the condemnation of error: "preachers of truth must do two things, namely exhort in sacred doctrine, and refute contradiction" (1).

2. The good of the Faith postulates this public condemnation of error even if the authority might fall: "In case of necessity, where the Faith is in danger, anyone is bound to proclaim his faith, either to instruct or encourage the other faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers "(2)," if the Faith were endangered, superiors should be rebuked by inferiors, even in public. Hence Paul, who was subject to Peter, rebuked him for this reason "(3).

3. The Truth is better highlighted by distinction from error and the condemnation of it (4).

4. The Truth must not be hidden through fear of criticism which will always exist whatever happens: "It is better to cause scandal than to abandon the Truth " (5).

5. The practice which consists of only searching for traditional passages in the Magisterium (a kind of intellectual scanner which only detects traditional passages) is basically the same which supports ecumenism: to see only the good aspects of religions (so as to not risk harming an agreement which would favor reconciliation).

6. The rational foundations of our position are based on the betrayal of Rome and Her abandonment of Tradition. Mentioning only the good side of Rome would lead gradually to forgetting the reasons for our combat and to fall imperceptibly into the combatted errors.

7. The best service that we can give Rome is to not be silent on the conciliar errors and to stand firm. What would one say of a wife or of children who would not warn their husband and father, if he started down a deadly path? Wouldn’t this be not love, but a servile and cruel cowardice?

8. This clarity of exposition and hence this condemnation of error is made more necessary because of the increased confusion in the Church and in particular in traditional circles. This confusion is explained by:

- the bone of contention, Ecclesia Dei, which after more than 20 years, does not cease to carry out its goal: to upset convictions and divide forces.

- a range of increasingly varied doctrinal nuances and therefore a greater confusion of minds, minds that are struggling to form an idea of the situation, which was not the case when both "camps" were well-divided;

- a youth which did not experience the combat of the veterans, did not have to position itself, and therefore needs more precision;

- a loss in some people of the habit of fighting, and with it, of reflecting on the reasons for it, since the last crisis, dating back to 1988, allowed convictions to be renewed.

9. Mentioning only the good side of Rome would lead first to believing that the crisis is reaching its end, then in a short time, to not understanding the refusal of the authorities of the Society in concluding an agreement with Rome, and thus diminishing this force of resistance.

That being said on this critical duty, it remains to be seen whether those who rally have at least kept their starting positions.

Notes

(1) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Comm. in 2.Cor. 2, Lesson 3, No. 72.

(2) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II.II.q.3, a.2, ad 2.

(3) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II. II.q.33, a.4, ad 2.

(4) This is the procedure of St. Thomas which puts forth objections, the assertion of the Truth, and the answer to the objections.

(5) Saint Gregory, Hom. 7 on Ezechiel.


Source :  laportelatine.org/district/france/bo/20ansapres/critique/critique.php